On May 10, a Delhi court acquitted Dinesh Yadav alias Michael, Sandeep alias Mogli and Tinku of the charges of rioting during the anti-Hindu Delhi Riots of 2020. While observing that the possibility cannot become evidence, the court said that there was insufficient proof against the three.
The three were accused of rioting, being members of a riotous mob that vandalised two properties and looted certain articles. Based on the complaint of Aakil Saifi and Irfan, FIR 124 was filed against the three at Gokalpuri Police Station. Charges were framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 149, 380, 188, 427 and 436 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the order, Justice Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts observed that the victims, who were also the witnesses, were not present at the concerned places when the incident happened. Thus, their statements regarding the incident were based on hearsay only. The court said, “These witnesses stated that some persons had informed them about vandalism and arson at their respective places. They did not disclose the particulars of those informers, nor IO found out their particulars. The evidence of these victims cannot be the basis to say that a mob caused these incidents.”
Special public prosecutor ‘led’ the witness to the identification
The court observed that the special public prosecutor ‘led’ the witness to the identification of the accused during his cross-examination. The questions asked by the special PP were not even asked during his examination-in-chief.
Calling it a wrong practice, the court said, “As far as PW13 is concerned, from his evidence, I also find that identification of accused by this witness was based on leading him to do so during his cross-examination conducted by ld. Special PP. However, the relevant facts in respect of which this witness was cross-examined by ld. Special PP was not asked from this witness during his examination-in-chief at all. Without seeking any answer from this witness on those facts, he was straightaway given suggestions by ld. Special PP, which was a wrong practice. Such kind of evidence cannot be relied upon by the court even otherwise.”
The court further observed that there was a strong possibility that a mob caused the incidents at the scene. However, “possibility cannot become evidence in itself, and it has remained a matter of presumption of prosecution, based on hearsay evidence or on the basis of possibility only, that there was a mob behind these incidents,” the court said.
‘Presumption cannot substitute evidence’
Justice Pramachala added that it is a well-settled legal proposition that strong suspicion or presumption cannot substitute evidence. “Therefore, for want of any evidence on the record, I am unable to say that there was a mob behind both the incidents probed in this case,” he said in the judgment.
The case against Dinesh, Sandeep and Tinku
On March 4, 2020, an FIR was registered against Dinesh, Sandeep and Tinku based on the complaint of Aakil Saifi. In his complaint, Aakil claimed that on February 24, 2020, between 3 PM to 4 PM, a mob looted all precious wood, steel articles and toolbox from their shop named ‘Saifi Fabrication & Furniture Steel Gate Grill Railing’ located in Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi.
Another complaint was filed by Irfan on March 15, 2020, in which he claimed that on February 24, 2020, around 5 PM, he closed his factory in Bhagirathi Vihar. On February 26, his relative, who lived in the same area, informed him that smoke was coming out of his factory. Someone informed him that his factory was set on fire the next day. His complaint was clubbed with Aakil’s FIR.
During the investigation, two witnesses, Sanoj and Vipin, named Dinesh, Sandeep and Tinku, for being part of the mob. In another FIR, the accused persons were allegedly seen indulging in the riots. Dinesh was arrested in FIR 78 on June 4, 2020. Sandeep was arrested in FIR 133 on August 29, 2020. Chargesheet was filed against them on September 2, 2020. A supplementary chargesheet naming Tinku in the case was filed on December 1, 2020.
On August 27, 2021, charges were framed by the court against Dinesh, Sandeep and Tinku for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 454, 380, 436, 427 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. They were later charged under Sections 188 IPC, for which they also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 24 witnesses were examined during the trial.
OpIndia’s detailed coverage of Delhi Riots 2020 can be checked here.
